Find Nearby Plumbers In High Point, North Carolina

Burroughs Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across professionalism and responsiveness, with multiple reviewers highlighting fast service, friendly staff, and same-day resolution of urgent issues. Pricing is noted favorably in a few reviews, including a notable instance where the office proactively helped a customer find a cheaper part elsewhere, suggesting transparency. However, a 1-star review from 2014 describes two concrete workmanship failures — a misaligned shower valve and an improper sink installation — which meaningfully pulls down the project completion and experience scores. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with only one review from the past 12 months, which limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• Only 1 of 7 reviews is from the past 12 months (2024-08-31). The remaining 6 reviews span 2014–2022, meaning this score may not reflect current service quality.
• The 1-star review (2014) contains specific, credible workmanship complaints — misinstalled shower valve and improper sink siliconing — which are weighted as genuine negative signals despite the review's age.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, and tone, which supports authenticity. However, the small sample size (7 reviews) limits overall reliability.

This WW Score is based on a small and largely dated review set; while the positive signals are credible, the score should be treated with caution until more recent reviews are available to confirm current service quality.

All five reviews consistently praise Kenneth and his team for strong communication, punctuality, and courteous service, driving a solid professionalism score. Pricing is highlighted favorably in four reviews, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting fair or competitive rates compared to other companies. Project completion is supported by three reviews that confirm jobs were finished and a callback was honored free of charge after a post-installation issue. Experience scores are moderate — reviewers describe successful outcomes but provide limited technical detail about workmanship quality. Overall confidence in this score is tempered by the small review pool and the age of most reviews, with four of five being more than three years old.

• Only 5 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw highly reliable conclusions.
• Four of five reviews are older than 3 years (2018–2020), with only one review from the past 12 months (2023). Recent performance may differ significantly from historical data.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language. While not conclusively fake, the absence of any criticism or nuance warrants caution. Reviews lack deep specifics about technical work performed.
• One review (2018-10-10) is notably generic ('Top notch professional work that is GUARANTEED') with no specific details — minor fake review concern flagged.

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary positive signal only — the very small review count, predominance of older reviews, and lack of technical detail limit how confidently this score reflects current service quality.

Priority Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, many reviewers praise specific technicians (Doug, Paul, Rey, Steve, Chuck) for punctuality, friendliness, technical skill, and quality workmanship — particularly on water softener and filter installations. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes no-shows, broken property that was not disclosed or repaired, overcharging, incomplete work requiring a second plumber, and outright rude or dismissive behavior from ownership. Pricing is similarly split: several reviewers call it fair or even a bargain, while others describe feeling overcharged or encountering opaque pricing. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, wrong pipe placement, unresolved callbacks, and work that caused downstream damage. The score reflects this genuine tension between a capable crew on good days and a pattern of serious service failures on bad ones.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review by 'Doug and Betty were great to work with...' (SpringWell install) appears twice with identical text on 2024-05-14, once with a timestamp and once without. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• NEAR-DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 2024-03-15 review about a Springwell water softener and carbon monoxide leak is nearly identical in language to the 2024-06-09 review. These may represent the same reviewer submitting twice or a copied review. Treated as one unique data point for scoring.
• REVIEW 'SAME AS ABOVE' (2011-10-03) and 'unknown' (2016-01-22) contain no usable content and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• SPAN OF REVIEWS IS VERY WIDE: Reviews range from 2007 to 2024. Reviews older than 2022 (approximately 35+ reviews) were given reduced weight, as they may not reflect current business practices, staffing, or ownership.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS NOTED: At least one review describes $100,000 in property damage attributed to the company's work, with the company denying responsibility (2019). Another describes employees breaking property and concealing it with silicone (2015). Another describes the owner cursing at customers (2013). These are high-severity flags that meaningfully suppress the project completion and professionalism scores.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years (2016, 2023, 2019, 2013) describe the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments or failing to follow through on estimates, suggesting a recurring reliability issue.
• MOST RECENT REVIEWS (2024) ARE PREDOMINANTLY POSITIVE AND SPECIFIC: The 2024 reviews appear genuine with specific technician names, job details, and varied language. No fake review pattern detected in recent reviews.
• OLDER NEGATIVE REVIEWS MAY REFLECT DIFFERENT STAFF OR OWNERSHIP: Several negative reviews reference 'Paul' as owner, while recent positive reviews reference 'Doug' as owner, suggesting possible ownership or staffing changes over time. This context was noted but scores were not adjusted speculatively.

This WW Score is based on 60 reviews spanning 17 years with high mention counts across all dimensions, giving it statistical breadth, but the wide time range, duplicate entries, and several high-severity negative incidents (property damage, no-shows, disputed workmanship) introduce meaningful uncertainty — the score should be treated as a fair average that masks significant variance in customer outcomes.

This contractor shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is supported by positive mentions of friendliness, cleanliness, and honesty (3 mentions, score 82). Pricing appears fair based on limited feedback (2 mentions, score 75). However, project completion is severely compromised by one catastrophic failure—a hot water tank leak that caused mold and required complete renovation redo, offsetting three positive completion reports (3 mentions, score 55). Experience is similarly mixed: two reviews praise skilled workmanship and quality materials, but one review explicitly states the work was terrible and caused major damage (3 mentions, score 70). The WW Score of 68.3 reflects significant reliability concerns driven primarily by the severe project failure.

• CRITICAL: One review (2007-02-13, 1-star) reports catastrophic failure—hot water tank leak causing mold and requiring complete renovation redo costing over $1 million. This directly contradicts positive reviews and raises serious questions about quality control and accountability.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 15 YEARS (2006-2008). No recent data available. Current contractor performance cannot be assessed from this dataset.
• Small sample size (5 reviews total) limits statistical reliability. Confidence in overall score is inherently limited.
• Contradiction between reviews: positive reviews praise quality and no problems; negative review indicates severe structural/water damage. This suggests either inconsistent work quality or potential service/accountability issues.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution due to extremely outdated reviews (15+ years old), small sample size, and a critical contradiction between catastrophic failure and positive reports that raises questions about consistency and accountability.

Coretech Plumbing shows a mixed but concerning picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately well based on multiple positive mentions of courteous, respectful technicians, but is significantly dragged down by one detailed negative review describing a rude customer service representative and a failure to honor a callback commitment. Pricing is a notable weak point: two reviews explicitly praise fair or reasonable pricing, but two others describe what appear to be overcharging incidents — one alleging a $750 flange charge after a $250 wax ring job, and another paying nearly $700 for a drain snake that failed within 13 days. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with one detailed review describing a recurring plumbing failure just 13 days after a paid service call, and the company refusing to return without additional charge despite the technician's verbal guarantee. Experience scores modestly, with some positive mentions of thorough explanations and quality workmanship, offset by the apparent failure to resolve a root plumbing issue on the first visit.

• One review (5-star, dated 2024-03-15) appears to be from a current employee: 'Called out for a dishwasher installation, hit it off with the owner and have been working for Coretech ever since.' This is likely a biased or fake review and has been discounted in scoring.
• Two of the three 5-star reviews from 2024 are dated the same day (2024-03-15) and share generic positive language with limited specifics — possible coordinated review activity.
• Three of the seven reviews are older than 3 years (2019–2021), reducing their relevance to current business performance. The two most recent 5-star reviews (2024) partially offset this but carry the fake review concern noted above.
• The 1-star review from 2021-04-02 is highly detailed and specific, describing a failed service call, a rude staff member, and a refusal to honor a verbal callback guarantee — this is treated as credible and weighted heavily in project completion and professionalism scoring.
• Overall review volume is very low (7 reviews). WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.

This WW Score is based on only 7 reviews spanning 5 years, includes at least one suspected employee or biased review, and features two serious negative accounts with specific, credible detail — the score should be treated as LOW CONFIDENCE and consumers are advised to seek additional references before hiring.

The review set is very small (5 reviews) and spans a wide date range from 2012 to 2016, meaning all reviews are significantly older than one year and carry reduced reliability. Professionalism is notably dragged down by one review describing a complete failure to follow up with a quote after two weeks, which is a serious responsiveness failure. Project completion is mixed — two reviews praise timely delivery, one notes the work was 'very slow,' and the follow-up failure in the 1-star review represents an incomplete engagement. Experience scores modestly well based on explicit mentions of knowledgeable problem-solving and quality workmanship, but the small sample limits confidence. Pricing received a limited but positive signal from one review that described transparent quoting behavior.

• All 5 reviews are older than 8 years (most recent: August 2016). This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current contractor performance.
• Sample size is very small (5 reviews). Scores and the WW Score should be treated as highly tentative.
• Three of the four positive reviews are generic in nature with limited specific detail, which slightly raises concern about review authenticity, though not conclusively.
• One 1-star review documents a clear professionalism failure (no follow-up after in-person consultation), which meaningfully impacts the professionalism dimension score.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to the extremely small review sample, the age of all reviews (none within the past 8+ years), and a meaningful negative data point that offsets otherwise modest positive feedback.